18 found
Sort by:
See also:
Profile: Erik Wielenberg (DePauw University)
  1. Erik J. Wielenberg (forthcoming). The Failure of Brown's New Supervenience Argument. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Erik J. Wielenberg (2013). Atheism and Morality. In Stephen Bullivant & Michael Ruse (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Oxford University Press. 89.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Thaddeus Metz, John G. Cottingham, Garrett Thomson, Erik J. Wielenberg, John Martin Fischer & Joshua W. Seachris (eds.) (2012). Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide. Wiley-Blackwell.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Erik J. Wielenberg (2012). Book Reviews Davison , Scott A. On the Intrinsic Value of Everything New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2012. Pp. 150. $80.00 (Cloth); $24.95 (Paper). [REVIEW] Ethics 123 (1):141-146.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Erik J. Wielenberg (2011). Discussion Note: The Failure of Brown's New Supervenience Argument. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 5:3-3.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Erik J. Wielenberg (2010). On the Evolutionary Debunking of Morality. Ethics 120 (3):441-464.
    Evolutionary debunkers of morality hold this thesis: If S’s moral belief that P can be given an evolutionary explanation, then S’s moral belief that P is not knowledge. In this paper, I debunk a variety of arguments for this thesis. I first sketch a possible evolutionary explanation for some human moral beliefs. Next, I explain how, given a reliabilist approach to warrant, my account implies that humans possess moral knowledge. Finally, I examine the debunking arguments of Michael Ruse, Sharon Street, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Erik J. Wielenberg (2010). Sceptical Theism and Divine Lies. Religious Studies 46 (4):509-523.
    In this paper I develop a novel challenge for sceptical theists. I present a line of reasoning that appeals to sceptical theism to support scepticism about divine assertions. I claim that this reasoning is at least as plausible as one popular sceptical theistic strategy for responding to evidential arguments from evil. Thus, I seek to impale sceptical theists on the horns of a dilemma: concede that either (a) sceptical theism implies scepticism about divine assertions, or (b) the sceptical theistic strategy (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Erik J. Wielenberg, Gopal Sreenivasan, Mark van Roojen, Edward S. Hinchman, Judith Lichtenberg & John Brunero (2010). 10. David Sobel and Steven Wall, Eds., Reasons for Action David Sobel and Steven Wall, Eds., Reasons for Action (Pp. 631-635). [REVIEW] Ethics 120 (3).
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Yujin Nagasawa & Erik J. Wielenberg (2009). Introduction. In Yujin Nagasawa & Erik J. Wielenberg (eds.), New Waves in Philosophy of Religion. Palgrave Macmillan.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Yujin Nagasawa & Erik J. Wielenberg (eds.) (2009). New Waves in Philosophy of Religion. Palgrave Macmillan.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Erik J. Wielenberg (2009). Ordering Thoughts. The Philosophers' Magazine 45 (45):106-107.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Erik J. Wielenberg (2008). God and the Reach of Reason: C.S. Lewis, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell. Cambridge University Press.
    C. S. Lewis is one of the most beloved Christian apologists of the twentieth century; David Hume and Bertrand Russell are among Christianity’s most important critics. This book puts these three intellectual giants in conversation with one another on various important questions: the existence of God, suffering, morality, reason, joy, miracles, and faith. Alongside irreconcilable differences, surprising areas of agreement emerge. Curious readers will find penetrating insights in the reasoned dialogue of these three great thinkers.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Erik J. Wielenberg (2008). God and the Reach of Reason: C. Cambridge University Press.
    C. S. Lewis is one of the most beloved Christian apologists of the twentieth century; David Hume and Bertrand Russell are among Christianity’s most important critics. This book puts these three intellectual giants in conversation with one another on various important questions: the existence of God, suffering, morality, reason, joy, miracles, and faith. Alongside irreconcilable differences, surprising areas of agreement emerge. Curious readers will find penetrating insights in the reasoned dialogue of these three great thinkers.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Erik J. Wielenberg (2006). Saving Character. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (4):461 - 491.
    In his recent book Lack of Character, John Doris argues that people typically lack character (understood in a particular way). Such a claim, if correct, would have devastating implications for moral philosophy and for various human moral projects (e.g. character development). I seek to defend character against Doris's challenging attack. To accomplish this, I draw on Socrates, Aristotle, and Kant to identify some of the central components of virtuous character. Next, I examine in detail some of the central experiments in (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Erik J. Wielenberg (2004). A Morally Unsurpassable God Must Create the Best. Religious Studies 40 (1):43-62.
    I present a novel argument for the position that a morally unsurpassable God must create the best world that He has the power to create. I show that grace-based considerations of the sort proposed by Robert Adams neither refute my argument nor establish that a morally unsurpassable God need not create the best. I conclude with a discussion of the implications of my argument for the ‘no-best-world’ response to the problem of evil. (Published Online February 17 2004).
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Erik J. Wielenberg (2002). How to Be an Alethically Rational Naturalist. Synthese 131 (1):81 - 98.
    Alvin Plantinga has famously argued that naturalism is self-defeating. Plantinga''s argument is, at its heart, an argument from analogy. Plantinga presents various epistemic situations and claims of each that (i) a person in such a situation has an undefeated defeater for each of his beliefs, and (ii) a reflective naturalist is in a relevantly similar situation. I present various epistemic situations and claim of each that a person in such a situation does not have an undefeated defeater for each of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Erik J. Wielenberg (2001). The New Paradox of the Stone Revisited. Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):261-268.
    Alfred Mele and M.P. Smith have presented a puzzle about omnipotence which they call “the new paradox of the stone.” They have also proposed a solution to this puzzle. I briefly present their puzzle and their proposed solution and argue that their proposed solution is unsatisfactory. I further argue that if their suggested solution to the original paradox of the stone succeeds, a similar solution also solves the new paradox of the stone.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Erik J. Wielenberg (2000). Many Are Culled but Few Are Chosen. Religious Studies 36 (1):81-93.
    In his recent book "Divine Providence: The Molinist Account," Thomas Flint suggests that necessarily, a world is culled iff it is chosen. I argue that there is good reason to think that this thesis is false. I further argue that the thesis is inconsistent with certain other claims that many theists will want to endorse and hence that many theists will want to reject Flint's claim. I next consider Flint's reasons for endorsing the thesis and argue that his reasons are (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation